Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!

View

Discuss

Share

We've improved Slashdot's video section; now you can view our video interviews, product close-ups and site visits with all the usual Slashdot options to comment, share, etc. No more walled garden! It's a work in progress -- we hope you'll check it out (Learn more about the recent updates).

Hugh Pickens writes writes "BBC reports that Pope Benedict XVI is to resign at the end of this month in an unexpected development, saying he is too old to continue at the age of 85. In a statement, the pontiff said: 'After having repeatedly examined my conscience before God, I have come to the certainty that my strengths, due to an advanced age, are no longer suited to an adequate exercise of the Petrine ministry.' Resignations from the papacy are not unknown, but this is the first in the modern era, which has been marked by pontiffs dying while in office."

It became apparent when he was supposed to move a priest who had been indulging in altar boys to the Diocese of Ogdensburg [wikipedia.org] in New York where they would have a trial and could pay off the families but instead he moved him to the Diocese of Owensboro [wikipedia.org] in Kentucky where, upon discovery, he was lynched and killed without a trial. At that point, every God Fearin' Holy Roman Catholic altar-boy-molesting priest in the world feared the Pope could no longer shield them from mortal justice and so it was clear he had to resign his post. It's been long rumored that Cardinal Vincent "Big Vinnie the Silencer" Mastrantonio will be the successor and be able to invoke the Holy Spirit to "keep those quiet who don't want their kneecaps busted in over here over there."

In July 2010, the Vatican doubled the length of time after the 18th birthday of the victim that clergymen can be tried in a church court and streamlined the processes for removing "pedophile priests."

So they streamlined a process to cater to a "mythical conspiracy project?"

People like you are what's wrong with organized religion and one of the primary reasons of why I am atheist. The people that run the Vatican and those in the past that have stood up and protected that power structure at all costs are fallible mortals. Shut up and deal with it or I'll throw you in with Scientology.

And all those cases have dried up, right? Right [thesouthern.com]? If you give money to the Roman Catholic church, that's what you're paying for, in part.

People like you are what's wrong with organized religion and one of the primary reasons of why I am atheist. The people that run the Vatican and those in the past that have stood up and protected that power structure at all costs are fallible mortals. Shut up and deal with it or I'll throw you in with Scientology.

I dunno about you, but I'm an atheist because there simply aren't any gods... but an anti-theist because of the way faith and religion makes people behave. Small difference, perhaps, but I wouldn't want people to believe that my objective interpretation of reality is merely a response to the way those pricks behave.

I dunno about you, but I'm an atheist because there simply aren't any gods... but an anti-theist because of the way faith and religion makes people behave. Small difference, perhaps, but I wouldn't want people to believe that my objective interpretation of reality is merely a response to the way those pricks behave.

The very fact that you call it your interpretation of realitity makes it subjective by definition (nothing wrong with that by the way).

We are all coloured by our experiences from the past. Our look at life is subjective at the core, because our brain interprets the data coming in through our senses whether we are aware of it or not. The best we can do is to strive for an as objective view of life as we possibly can. But even then our view of life is by definition, not objective, because of that little possessive pronoun preceding 'view of life'.

Um, calling something an "objective interpretation" qualifies the kind of interpretation that's being attempted. It's like the Copenhagen interpretation [wikipedia.org] of quantum physics. It's not intended to mean that the speaker is from Copenhagen.

Perhaps eldavojohn meant that such people were the cause of a transition to atheism but not the basis for his continued atheism. "I don't know if God exists, but the people who claim to be speaking on his behalf are clearly wrong or at least insane" is probably a common thought that leads one to initially reject a theology, or never take one up in the first place.

Either that or Eldavojohn was making a minor hyperbole. Or eldavojohn's beliefs aren't purely logical, like most of us.

but an anti-theist because of the way faith and religion makes people behave.

Anyone who has studied any sort of history knows that people need no excuse or justification to "misbehave"; its just that if excuses or justifications are available they will use them.

Do you really think that the IRA bombings are purely religious? That the Holocaust wouldnt have happened without a religious target? That the people in the Westboro church would be cuddly kittens if only it werent for religion?

People like you are what's wrong with organized religion and one of the primary reasons of why I am atheist.
Really? Strange, I would've thought a disbelief in the concept of a God would've made you an atheist. If you have a reason OTHER than that, then you need to seriously rethink your convictions (hint: belief in a God doesn't require believing in the "holy" organizations that claim to know what's "right.")

There was this guy who wanted to debate me when I was volunteering at a religious function. He starts off with telling me he's an atheist and then proceeds to rant about why does God allow volcanos to go off and kill innocent children and whatnot...

I try to be polite and reason with him but he's got serious anger issues with the idea of God and he's starting to make a scene. So I say to him "You know I read that true atheists are not angry at God, if he doesn't exist why are you mad at him?" He started laughing and then calmed down a bit. After that he identified as agnostic and I found out he grew up religious but basically couldn't reconcile the existence of evil and suffering in the world with his understanding of God. He ended up bitter and resentful. It's too bad he had all that emotional baggage and wasn't able to discuss it rationally, I much prefer an educated atheist over an angry pretender.

I know this is going to kill my mod points, but I'll throw it out anyway...

What if WWII wasn't the worst thing in the web of possible 20th century events? What if there was no WWII and the Cold War started pre or early-nuke with a (mostly) demilitarized Europe and America had minimal troops and arms factories setup (as is the case in almost every "somebody went back in time and killed Hitler" story)? What if the European powers continued pointless and frequent war, treating it as a sport as they did in the 19th century and before?

If you look at WWII as the almost-inevitable epilogue to WWI due to the terms put on Germany, WWI/WWII were sort of the "War to end all wars [in Europe]" (ignoring smaller, regional conflicts). No one has invaded London, Paris, Berlin (although it was divided), Brussels, or Rome in almost 70 years.

The counterpoint to this argument is the following:Assume that you are a lawyer for a criminal who is at a trial for murder. Your client admitted it, people saw him do it, there's video of him doing it, audio, 300 witnesses, etc. In short, there's no doubt he did it. But you stand up and tell the jury that, despite all this evidence, they should not convict because there is some possibility that some unspecified evidence at some point in the future may come to light that will exonerate your client.

As a jury person, I'd laugh at you. We have to judge based on the evidence we have, and the best evidence is that if Hitler had died or was killed, WWII would not have gone on as long, and there would have been many less casualties of the war. WHile it's possible something worse could have occurred, most historians agree that WWII would have ended much quicker if Hitler was not in charge, and it likely would not have occurred at all. He drove that war. So yes, maybe God knows that something worse would have happened, but I have to make my choice about the evil or goodness of the Christian God directly in front of me, and I choose to believe that a good God would not have allowed WWII to go on...and would have given Hitler the flu or something similar.

The people that run the Vatican and those in the past that have stood up and protected that power structure at all costs are fallible mortals.

Even without the sexual molestation issues the organization is still rotten. The conclave to elect the new pope will be interesting this time because there's no mourning period and thus no time for the usual political positioning power plays. Yeah, it's a good thing, but you'd have thought those people know better:(

In July 2010, the Vatican doubled the length of time after the 18th birthday of the victim that clergymen can be tried in a church court and streamlined the processes for removing "pedophile priests."

So they streamlined a process to cater to a "mythical conspiracy project?"
People like you are what's wrong with organized religion and one of the primary reasons of why I am atheist. The people that run the Vatican and those in the past that have stood up and protected that power structure at all costs are fallible mortals. Shut up and deal with it or I'll throw you in with Scientology.
And all those cases have dried up, right? Right [thesouthern.com]? If you give money to the Roman Catholic church, that's what you're paying for, in part.

Dude -- The "a" in "atheist"means without or lacking. I'm an atheist the same way I'm amoral. IMHO, morals are way too multi-valued to be a useful guide to modulating my behavior. I'm not anti-moral, or even immoral (how can I be immoral if I don't use any morals?) I'm just amoral, without morals. Ditto atheism -- since I know there is no way to demonstrate the existence of a god, I am, by definition, without a god -- an atheist. I am also without all the associated baggage that theists have to trundl

Atheism is a belief statement. To be atheist means that you lack a belief in any god or gods.

Agnosticism is a knowledge statement. To be agnostic, in this context, means that you don't know if any god or gods exist.

You can be an atheist (lacking belief) and also be agnostic (lacking knowledge). An agnostic atheist would not believe in any gods, but also would not claim to know that no gods exist. A gnostic atheist both lacks the belief and claims knowledge that no gods exist.

I am also an agnostic because I realize you can't *prove* there is no god.

You make the exact same mistake the parent makes: Proof or the ability to prove need not enter in to it at all. We're dealing with "that" not "why", after all.

Right, cause things like this are rampant in every other religion, right?

and one of the primary reasons of why I am atheist.

If the 20th century has taught us anything, its that all religions are messed up and all atheists are cuddly kittens.--This message has been approved by Pol Pot and Stalin

The RCC has a fair share of troubles, but that's largely a function of it abandoning any authority other than "what we say" all of those centuries ago. What do you suppose made up a huge portion of the grievances in Luther's 95 theses? Heres a hint, it starts "cor" and ends "ruption".

Agreed, It isn't funny.* I AM NOT EXCUSING THESE GROUPS FOR THEIR HORRIBLE ACTS However I am explaining that their actions in a less emotional reaction.

The problem lies in the fact not in problems with the church's beliefs, or even its policies. Except for the fact that it is an old institution, Just like the Boy Scouts of America. The issue of this cover-up is based on issues that have happened in the past where is was more common to cover it up, and quietly move the offending person away from the problem. This happened with families during the past too. Their Kid gets assaulted by their Uncle, the parents will just make sure the Uncle is never alone with the child, and not invited to as much events as they can.

What compounds the issue is the Church, Boy Scouts, and other similar groups is that they are groups that stand for high moral values. And when there is a lapse it is that much harder for such groups to admit to past mistakes, and compound the problem. In many ways these continuing jokes and jabs validate their concerns about releasing the information. In America although about 1/3 of the population is Catholic about 2/3, are not. And many Christian groups still hold anger to the Catholic Church for things that have happened hundreds of years ago. So when would be a good time to show they have been hiding the practices. Any time would be bad, because there are so many people who wants to see the Moral Group go down and show how bad they are.

Now we combine the Catholic Churches Key belief on forgiveness and absolution. Which has a gap for people who have mental illnesses, where once you confess to your sins you are good again. So the priests who have had a lapse in their control went and got forgiveness, the Church if following that particular dogma then punished the priest further it would seem like they are not holding on to their ideals.

I am willing to bet there are a lot more organizations who have hid their sexual abuse records, and you will find that most of them are from "Good" Organizations who in general are out there tying to help people. Schools, Social Workers, Youth Groups, Mission Groups.... Anywhere where the adults are suppose to be the good guys that the kid should historically trust.

The solution to this problem, isn't making sarky comments and getting angry at the organization, but to help insure there are new policies in place to help protect children, education to teach children and parents on how to protect themselves and their children. Yes punish the people who continued the cover up and lied about it, but this general public over reaction that makes it seem a Catholic Priest is equal to a Rapist is just overall bad and unproductive.

The solution to this problem, isn't making sarky comments and getting angry at the organization, but to help insure there are new policies in place to help protect children

Also perhaps the Church needs to allow its priests some kind of legitimate sexual outlet (e.g. marriage). Otherwise the position attracts people who try to bury their sexual urges, only to have them build up and then re-appear in inappropriate ways.

I don't personally believe that requiring a legitimate sexual outlet is strictly necessary.... In fact, I might suggest that if or when a priest finds that such desires are interfering with his ability conduct himself professionally then that priest ought to resign his post. The reason for abstinence is based on the notion that they can more fully devote their lives and passion to God. Right or wrong, it's their belief, and although I do not personally share it, I can still respect that value... as long

While the Church is a church of forgiveness, it is not a Church of forgetfulness. The Church can decide not to punish a molesting priest, but it should realize that it has a problem with that priest and should not let that priest around children again.

For the record, policy in the USA requires any Church members (from bishops down to Religious Education teachers) are required to take a course in child abuse detection and prevention (sexual and otherwise). One of the things that they teach there is if they see signs of abuse from anybody, they are to inform both the Church and the local constabulary.

The reasons that the Catholics have been singled out on the abuse angle are roughly:1: We are expected to be held to a higher moral standard than even other churches, as well we should be2: There are an awful lot of priests there. Roughly a third of the US Christian population is Catholic, and no other church has a quarter as many members as the Catholic church does. Again, more reason to keep our noses (and other parts) clean.3: The ugly reason is that the Catholic Church is organized different from other churches, and thus easier to sue for big money. Because we are an authoritarian church, ownership is by hierarchy. When the scandal started up in Boston (the archidiocese I grew up in), people weren't suing a priest, or that priest's church, but the archdiocese itself, which draws its income from every Catholic church in the Greater Boston area.

None of these should be taken as excusing things that the Church and priests, but I do note that the above reasons may explain why we don't see similar scandals rocking other churches. I highly doubt that the Catholics have cornered the market on molesting clergy.

For my money, the fact that these pedophiles exist in the Church is horrible, but in a way understandable. Any large group will have some bad apples, and it's impossible to weed them all out. The fact that the Church had been protecting these priests [em]as policy[/em] is much worse. I for one would have loved to see Cardinal Law explain himself to a grand jury, and think in retrospect that Pope John Paul II did us all a disservice by getting him out of the country before that could happen.

While the Church is a church of forgiveness, it is not a Church of forgetfulness. The Church can decide not to punish a molesting priest, but it should realize that it has a problem with that priest and should not let that priest around children again.

This is a slight segue, but I think it's a point that needs to be made. The Catholic church arrogates to itself the ability to forgive sins on behalf of God. But just because God forgives you doesn't mean the act has been dealt with. When you do something wrong (like molest a child), you're violating a whole host of relationships - between you and the child (sexual abuse), you and the child's parents (abuse of trust), you and the wider community (breaking the law) as well as between you and God (violating H

Catholics only make up about 1/5 of the American population... and a lot of those are only nominal Catholics.

So the priests who have had a lapse in their control went and got forgiveness, the Church if following that particular dogma then punished the priest further it would seem like they are not holding on to their ideals.

This couldn't be more wrong. Gaining absolution means that you have shown remorse, etc, for your sin, asked for forgiveness an

Please point me to some citations on this. All the information I can find says that the rate of molestations are near identical to every other profession in which exposure to children is part of it.

This number is higher then a number for the general population. I think it has to do with those who would harm the children actively seeking out avenues to be exposed to them.

Whether it is or isn't, the reason for the outrage is that few professions are as monolithic between trade and employer as the Catholic Church and even fewer have a history of covering for offenders in such a wide-spread manner. Likewise, few other professions are dedicated specifically to moral standards. The Catholic Church is one of the world's major definers of moral standards. When it covers up violations and worse, lets the violators go unpunished, this damages their credibility in a significant way.

You can be as outraged as you like. The GP said it "occur the most amongst popes and priests" which I can not find anything indicating is true.

As for morals, I seriously doubt it has anything to do with it. People who will break the law often conceal themselves. How many times have you seen a cat burglar walking down the street? Probably more then you realize.

So I guess a question might be, does the moral lessons pushed by someone automatically become void should that person turn out to not be moral? I mean if you see a cop stealing money from a cash register when the store keeper is stocking slurpy cups, does it mean it is no longer wrong to steal?

Of course not. But I can agree with you being more pissed that a cop was stealing. I can't agree that it somehow means now all cops or law enforcement in general are thieves (hypothetically)

For a group who are supposed to hold the moral high ground because of their job, you should expect it to be considerably lower. Much like you would expect the crime rate among judges and police to be lower - because it is their role in society to have the moral high ground. It's also why the law should come down harder on police and judges when they do step out of line

It's a fact that molestations occur the most amongst popes and priests.

Cite sources, please. I'm not saying it doesn't happen a lot, but can you show a single study that conclusively shows a higher incidence rate inside of a church than outside? Of all the people that I know well enough to know that they had suffered some sort of sexual abuse while younger, I can only think of *ONE* who was actually abused by a religious leader (which led to him, quite understandably, deeply resenting the entire concep

No, as as has been pointed out, there have been other Popes who have resigned short of death, but just not for health reasons, in at least a 1000 years. Before AD 1000 I am not sure how often Popes resigned, but after AD 1000 4 have, including the current one.

The first one after AD 1000, Benedict IX, resigned either because he A) Sold the office or )B wanted to get married, depending on the sources you believe.

Interestingly, he was also supposed have been the first gay Pope, and he held orgies in the Lateran palace.

If you read into it deeper, it gets a lot more interesting. Hell, you could almost write a full book just on why the popes that retired did, and what happened to them.

The 1415 resignation wasn't really by choice. He entered into an agreement such that he would abandon the pope title if the other anti-popes (people calling themselves pope, but weren't actually pope according to the official records) would abandon their titles too. Obviously, the winner writes the history books, so with all of that mess, t

Yes, Benedict IX was a product of a time where Rome was little more than a city run by families that were, in effect, much like organized gangs. Since, at the time, the election of the Popes was not done by the Cardinals, but by the local nobles of the Rome area, the papacy was basically captive to secular rulers.

This period is known as saeculum obscurum (the Dark Age), and due to the influence of related females, was also amusingly known also as the Pornocracy.

For a site filled with pedants, it's odd how many members forget the "stuff that matters" part of the slogan. The Catholic church has a membership of over 1 billion people, and a change in pope can affect how those people -- and especially their kids -- view certain issues, including scientific issues (albeit, the Catholics are nothing like evangelists).

a change in pope can affect how those people -- and especially their kids -- view certain issues, including scientific issues

Can, but won't. All of the Cardinals involved were either appointed by the current or previous pope, and/or they appointed the current pope. How they view certain issues and how the next pope they select also views them will not change. It'll take Vatican III to bring about any real progress, and with the current conservative trend I don't think Vatican III would come anytime soon.

You're probably right, but the guy who started Vatican II, John XXIII, was not exactly a flaming liberal himself, and was also thought to be a caretaker pope. Of course, considering that he died in the middle of Vatican II, the idea of him having a short term was obviously accurate, he just chose not to act like he was holding on to the position while someone younger came up.

The interesting thing about the Pope is that he's an absolute monarch of an extreme sort. Once elected, there is hundreds of years o

And not big enough to be in hof, but essential reading for me on the day -- pretty much the only website which stayed up as I dialed in from work on my 28.8 modem* World Trade Towers and Pentagon Attacked

Seriously? So what? I'm pretty sure that a change in the religious leadership for over 1 billion people spread across the entire globe fits in the "stuff that matters" category. The guidance of the pope strongly influences the way that a very large number of people think about important topics such as family planning, the role of government, charity, women's issues, the relationship between religions, and more.

I'm an atheist from 'Murica and even I understand the potential significance of such a change. I mean, it probably isn't as important as DRM on video games or complaining about Apple, but it merits a spot in the list.

Because Alicia Keys [slashdot.org] is rumored to have been asked to succeed Benedict.

This could have profound consequences for the future of the Blackberry, which will either lose its creative director or become the official smartphone of God's consigliere. Forget the fact that there has never been a female priest in Catholicism and just think about it. She could do a lot more for turnaround efforts at the Vatican than she ever could at the company formerly known as RIM. She's young, beautiful, popular, already has more

If you consider Peter the first pope, it's going on two thousand years, actually. It says something when the last time someone resigned was 600 years ago, which was before Columbus found the New World.

This affects a large chunk of the planet's population and hasn't happened in 600 years.

Exactly. In a nerd world where "achievements" are virtual tasks completed in a virtual environment that has not been accomplished by anyone else in the last 5.2 seconds and "major events" involve hundreds of people around the world converging on a server for a virtual battle that causes a virtual time dilation, an event that has not occurred for 598 years (to be exact) an pd affects a billion people around the world is significant as "stuff that matters."

Actually, one theory is that instead of years they were referring to lunar months for the ages, which makes 900 equal to about 75 years. But what I was taught in theology was the numbers, like many numbers in the Bible, were symbolic, intended to symbolize the deteriorating moral state of Man.

Actually, one theory is that instead of years they were referring to lunar months for the ages, which makes 900 equal to about 75 years.

This theory doesn't hold water for the following reasons:* Gen 7:11 "In the six hundredth year of Noah’s life, in the second month, on the seventeenth day of the month, on this day all the springs of the vast watery deep were broken open and the floodgates of the heavens were opened". If a year is in fact a lunar month, what is this "second month" and even more this "seventeenth day"?* Gen 8:13,14 "Now in the six hundred and first year, in the first month, on the first day of the month, it came about

Damn, now it makes perfect sense...Noah was only ~250 years old when he died. Makes the whole bible seem more legit.

The whole point of the Bible is to state God existence, and the nature of that God.So, if we assume an omnipotent God exists and wanted somebody to live for ~900 years, He has the strength and ability to be able to do so.

In a statement released by the Vatican Today, it was announced that his Holiness Pope Benedict XVI will step down with immediate effect. When asked for a reason, a spokesman for his former holiness suggested that he would like to spend more time with his wife and children.

In a statement released by the Vatican Today, it was announced that his Holiness Pope Benedict XVI will step down with immediate effect. When asked for a reason, a spokesman for his former holiness suggested that he would like to spend more time with his wife and children.

Actually, by retiring before he dies, he gets a strong voice in selecting his successor. That, along with the fact that he's been carefully selecting like-minded cardinals the last several years, ensures the next pope will by very similar to Benedict.

Recent history shows he doesn't have to resign early to affect his succession. If you were watching in 2005 you would know that Pope John Paul II did exactly that and basically put him (the current Pope) into office as his hand-picked successor. Look at nearly any picture of the previous Pope in the last few years of his life and you're see the the man who became Benidict XVI in the same frame.

Not like this is any big scandal. - It's totally natural to be concerned about who takes over when you leave.

AND, leaders (religious, political or even corporate) selecting others who are like minded is called "Organizational Consistency" and is not a ""bad word"" in most places.

After John-Paul I died (probably by foul play) the Curia made damn sure that they weren't going to get someone like him in charge again for a long time. In other times John-Paul II would probably have revolutionized the Church, but he owed Cardinal Marcinkus and his corrupt cronies for his selection and only appointed ultraconservative cardinals during his entire reign. (In all fairness, considering the demise of his predecessor he may have been operating partly out of fear as well.) The Curia put pressure on more liberal cardinals to resign early as well, enabling their replacement with someone more in line with their own vision. Thus the selection of the head of the Inquisition as the new Pope after John-Paul II's death.

Reading between the lines, I think HBO's recent "Mea Maxima Culpa" was probably a significant factor. His resignation will stave off the worst of the public outcry and demands for deeper revelations from the church about the matters raised there. Hopefully the Catholic Church will be pressed about the issues raised regardless, but his specific, key role in it all is the point at the moment.

To recap what I read elsewhere: prior to being Pope, he was the head of the modern (renamed) Inquisition, assigned there by the previous pope. In that role, he "took charge" of the recent wave of priest sex abuse scandals since the 90s, ordered all evidence be centralized in his department's archives, and then basically hid it all and did little to actually act on the mountains of evidence they still haven't revealed to prosecutors or the public. It's pretty damning stuff.

Reading between the lines, I think HBO's recent "Mea Maxima Culpa" was probably a significant factor. His resignation will stave off the worst of the public outcry and demands for deeper revelations from the church about the matters raised there. Hopefully the Catholic Church will be pressed about the issues raised regardless, but his specific, key role in it all is the point at the moment.

To recap what I read elsewhere: prior to being Pope, he was the head of the modern (renamed) Inquisition, assigned there by the previous pope. In that role, he "took charge" of the recent wave of priest sex abuse scandals since the 90s, ordered all evidence be centralized in his department's archives, and then basically hid it all and did little to actually act on the mountains of evidence they still haven't revealed to prosecutors or the public. It's pretty damning stuff.

The late, lamented Christopher Hitchens had possibly the ultimate take on the cover-up at Slate.com [slate.com].

To quote the appropriately entitled "The Great Catholic Cover-Up: The pope's entire career has the stench of evil about it":

Very much more serious is the role of Joseph Ratzinger, before the church decided to make him supreme leader, in obstructing justice on a global scale. After his promotion to cardinal, he was put in charge of the so-called "Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith" (formerly known as the Inquisition). In 2001, Pope John Paul II placed this department in charge of the investigation of child rape and torture by Catholic priests. In May of that year, Ratzinger issued a confidential letter to every bishop. In it, he reminded them of the extreme gravity of a certain crime. But that crime was the reporting of the rape and torture. The accusations, intoned Ratzinger, were only treatable within the church's own exclusive jurisdiction. Any sharing of the evidence with legal authorities or the press was utterly forbidden. Charges were to be investigated "in the most secretive way... restrained by a perpetual silence... and everyone... is to observe the strictest secret which is commonly regarded as a secret of the Holy Office under the penalty of excommunication." (My italics). Nobody has yet been excommunicated for the rape and torture of children, but exposing the offense could get you into serious trouble. And this is the church that warns us against moral relativism! (See, for more on this appalling document, two reports in the London Observer of April 24, 2005, by Jamie Doward.)

Martin Luther & John Calvin were fairly successful in forking it. One could say Luther published the source code by translating the Bible into German. (OK - better stop before I start doing car analogies!)

I don't know how many of the "nerds" here are Catholic, but with a possible membership of almost a billion people (active or not), that's a lot of people this could affect personally here on this site.

Also, this particular pope is quite conservative in his views. What happens when the next pope comes in and has a more reformist idea set and says that God's told him to reveal something like, "Gay priests are acceptable - don't ask, don't tell," "Priests can marry if they want," etc., that's a major social shift that will have ripples across society.

Even more importantly, imagine if the new pope suddenly said, "Birth control is ok..." That simple utterance from Vatican City could slow starvation and tame resource usage in poorer, more uneducated countries where millions devout Catholics take the Pope's word as law. All of a sudden technologies like GMO crops are viewed a little differently as food demand dips and the spreading of HIV or other STDs drop precipitously over time.

Bottom line: This just may be big news for nerds - even those who could care less about the Catholic church, or any organized religion.

Two infallible people at the same time would have to agree on everything.
What I don't understand is is he infallible now? I mean, he admits he can't continue - surely a sign he is not infallible. Or does he only project into the future that one day he will no longer be infallible so he better get out now. But even then this is a sign that he is not infallible.
This is the sort of thing that can keep you up at night until you realize what a load of horse shit this all is and you wonder why some people still bother with it. BTW why is he referred to as the "Pope". Other religious groups have popes too. Can we at least always refer to him as the "Catholic Pope".

The Infallibility doctrine does not apply to everything he says, just specific items of dogma that are specified, and those are usually fairly non-controversial items to believing Catholics.

In other words, he's not expected to be perfect as a person, but after having duly deliberated on a matter of doctrine, that doctrine could be designated infallible. It's an authority that only the Pope gets to use, and he won't be Pope after he resigns.

I'm no religion nerd, but my understanding is the infallibility is vested in the job position not the person.

There's a lot of BS and propaganda about the whole papal infallibility thing... you have to realize the cardinals and pope have spent centuries fighting over who's really in charge, and by fighting I mean literally to the death by sword and poison. So "recently" a strongman (relatively...) gets in power and as a weapon he declares he's the boss and everyone else aka his opponents (the cardinals) are his underlings. Frankly not all that exciting. When even a guy like me sees it as a pretty simple political play as opposed to religious mythology, using the political play to make fun of the catholics just isn't funny anymore. I would not be surprised if when the cardinals gain supremacy they put a guy in who reverses that declaration and makes the college of cardinals infallible as the leaders and declares the bishop of rome as merely first among equals... Its politics not theology. Or at most, theological politics.

Yeah, my memories are that of an eleven year old, church seemed like magic, until you see what goes on behind the scenes. Learning that the magician isn't really magic after all is disillusioning, it's only in retrospect as an adult that you fully understand it's basically a business, like sports players learn. I believe in God (and God believes in me), though when realizing the abuses that organized religion (and any institution) allows because the known abuser is able to fill the collection plates, it's t

There do exist religion nerds, just like sports nerds, tv nerds, drama (theatrical) nerds, music nerds. I've already seen them coming out of the woodwork in MSM articles about how this crisis was handled in 1084 and the biography of his previous namesake and what amounts to jailhouse lawyering about the election process, blah blah blah.